Shri.Rajendra Gundu Patil vs Mrs.Sushila Rajendra Patil
2022 Latest Caselaw 8668 Kant

                              -1-




                                       RPFC No. 100111 of 2019


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                           BEFORE
           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
        REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100111 OF 2019 (-)
BETWEEN:

SHRI.RAJENDRA GUNDU PATIL
AGE : 38 YEARS, OCC : LIC AGENT,
R/O: HOSUR, TQ: CHANDGAD,
DIST: KOLHAPUR-416509
                                                ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SOURABH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.    MRS.SUSHILA RAJENDRA PATIL
      AGE : 38 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD,
      R/O: GUGREHNATTI,
      TQ and DIST:BELAGAVI-591156

2.    MISS.ADITI RAJENDRA PATIL
      AGE : 11 YEARS, OCC : STUDENT,
      R/O: GUGREHNATTI,
      TQ and DIST:BELAGAVI-591156

3.    KUMAR.KARTIK RAJENDRA PATIL
      AGE : 4 YEARS, OCC : STUDENT,
      R/O: GUGREHNATTI,
      TQ and DIST:BELAGAVI-591156
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    R2 TO R3 - MINORS REP. BY R1)

      THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
30.07.2019, IN CRL.MISC. NO.332/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C. WITHIN THE PERIOD
OF LIMITATION.
                                    -2-




                                           RPFC No. 100111 of 2019




     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                                ORDER

This Revision Petition is arising out of the order dated

30.07.2019, passed in Crl.Misc.No.332/2015 on the file of the

Family Court, Belagavi, allowing the petition in part.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this petition

are referred to as per their ranks before the family Court.

3. Relevant facts for adjudication of this petition are that,

the marriage of the first petitioner with the respondent before the

Family Court was solemnized 23.06.2004 at Gugrenhatti Village at

Belagavi and in their wedlock petitioners No.2 and 3 were born. It

is the case of the petitioners that, respondent - husband was not

looking after the needs of the petitioners and they have been driven

out from the matrimonial home during the pregnancy of petitioner

No.1 and as such, she is residing in her parents' house along with

children. It is further stated in the petition that, having find inability

to lead a normal life, petitioners have file Crl.Misc.No.332 of 2015

on the file of the Family Court seeking maintenance.

RPFC No. 100111 of 2019

4. On service of notice, respondent entered appearance

and filed detailed objection, denying the averments made in the

petition. In order to prove their case, petitioner No.1 was examined

herself as PW1 and got examined another witnesses as PW2 and

produced 14 documents and the same were marked as Exs.P1 to

P14. Respondent was examined himself as RW1 and got marked

15 documents and the same were marked as Exs.P1 to P15.

5. The Family Court after considering the material on

record, by its order dated 30.07.2019, allowed the petition in part.

Feeling aggrieved by the same, respondent husband has preferred

this petition.

6. Sri. Sourabh Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner contended that the respondent - husband is a LIC agent

and he has to eke out his livelihood through the commission

earned by him and therefore, the award of maintenance is on the

higher side and accordingly sought for interference of this court.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent sought to justify the impugned order.

RPFC No. 100111 of 2019

8. In view of the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel appearing for the parties and taking into account the fact

that the marriage between the 1st petitioner and respondent was

solemnized on 23.06.2004, and in their wedlock, petitioners No.2

and 3 were born, the perusal of the impugned order would indicate

that, one of the petitioners-child was handicap. In that view of the

matter, taking into account the fact that the respondent-husband is

an earning member in the family and also it has come in the

evidence of PW1 that the respondent-husband is having

immovable properties, I am of the view that the finding recorded by

the Family Court is just and proper which does not call for

interference in this petition.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

gab